BANIPADA SAHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a member of the Indian Police Service (I.P.S., for short). He was appointed to the I.P.S. as a direct recruit in 1963 and was allotted to the Orissa Cadre. In November 1990 he was brought on deputation as Chief Security Commissioner-cum-Inspector General, South-Eastern Railway in the Railway Protection Force (R.P.F.) under the Government of India. At present the top post in the R.P.F. is the post of Director General. Since the retirement of the earlier incumbent Shri Raja Shreedharan from the post of the Director General, R.P.F. on 31-3-93 the petitioner has been looking after the current duties of the post of Director General, R.P.F. in addition to his own duties as the Chief Security Commissioner-cum-Inspector General, R.P.F., South-Eastern Railway pending filling up of the post of Director General on regular basis. The petitioner's claim is that being the seniormost Inspector General in the R.P.F. and having served for more than 3 years on deputation in the post of Inspector General, R.P.F., South-Eastern Railway, he is entitled to be appointed to the post, of Director General on regular basis. But his grievance is that ignoring his claim the Government of India is going to appoint someone else on deputation namely, the respondent No. 7, Shri Kalyan Rudra who is a member of I.P.S. and is at present the Director General of Police, Haryana. In this writ petition the petitioner accordingly prays for revocation of the Government of India's decision, if any, to appoint Shri Kalyan Rudra or any other officer other than the petitioner as Director General R.P.F. on regular basis. In the writ petition the petitioner further prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith appoint the petitioner as Director General, R.P.F. on regular basis. Apart from the Railway Board, the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Railways is also a respondent. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India is also a party respondent. Mr. Dipankar Gupta, the learned Solicitor General appeared in this case representing the respondent nos. 1 to 6 including the Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Railways and the Railway Board.

(2.) The contention of the respondents, in short, is that the petitioner being an I.P.S. officer of 1963 batch does not come up for consideration for appointment to a post of the level of Director General under the Central Government and presently the appointment to the Director General level posts under the Central Government is confined to officers falling within the seniority range of 1959, 1960 and 1961 batches. It is the case of the respondents that the framing of the recruitment rules for the post of Director General, R.P.F. is under process and pending that this post is being filled up by deputation of a suitable I.P.S. officer and it is not a cadre post of I.P.S. when filled up on deputation by an I.P.S. officer the same is treated as deputation to D.G. level post at Centre and it is in the pay scale of Rs. 8000/- (fixed) when held by an I.P.S. officer. It is also the case of the respondents that as per procedure, for the purpose of filling up this post by deputation, a panel of names of suitable I.P.S. officers is obtained from the Ministry of Home Affairs through Department of Personnel & Training and appointment is made on receipt of approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet. While forwarding the recommendations, it is the case of the respondents, the Ministry of Home Affairs considers the suitability of I.P.S. Officers available for Central deputation and empanelled to hold D.G/equivalent level posts at the Centre and recommends names of suitable I.P.S. officers to the Ministry of Railways for consideration for appointment to the post of Director General, R.P.F. In paragraph 6 of the vacating application filed by respondents, it is stated that for empanelment for the posts of D.G/equivalent at the Centre, there is a high level Selection Committee consisting of Cabinet Secretary, Principal Secretary to Prime Minister, Home Secretary and Secretary (personnel) and this Committee considers I.P.S. officers of sufficient seniority for empanelment to D.G/equivalent posts at the Centre and the recommendations of the Selection Committee require approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet. It is also stated therein that till date, officers upto 1961 batch of I.P.S. have been empanelled for consideration for appointment to the D.G. level posts at the Centre. In paragraph 7 of the said vacating application it is stated by the respondents that prior to the superannuation of Shri Raja Shreedharan on 31-3-93 the Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India was requested by the Ministry of Railways to send a panel of names of suitable I.P.S. officers for consideration for appointment to the post of Director General, R.P.F. and a panel of four officers belonging to 1959 and 1960 batches empanelled to hold D.G/equivalent level posts at the Centre was considered for appointment to the post of Director General, R.P.F. It is the further contention of the respondents that out of those four officers, Shri R. Ramalingam, an I.P.S. officer of 1960 batch was considered to be suitable for appointment to the post of Director General, R.P.F. on deputation basis, but before a final decision could be reached it transpired that the services of Shri Ramalingam were not available and out of the remaining three, one was also not available while the remaining two officers were not considered suitable in view of their short tenure of service left before superannuation. It is the case of the respondents as pleaded in the said paragraph 7 of the vacating application that thereafter the name of Shri Kalyan Rudra, the respondent No. 7 was included in the panel for consideration of appointment to the post of Director General, R.P.F. It is also stated therein that Shri Kalyan Rudra belongs to 1960 batch of I.P.S. and is senior to the petitioner by 3 years and empanelled to hold D.G/equivalent level post at the Centre. It may be mentioned here that both Shri Kalyan Rudra and the petitioner have been awarded the President's Police Medal, the former in 1987 and the latter in 1993. As per the combined gradation fist of I.P.S. officers as on 1-1-93 the name of Shri Kalyan Rudra appears at sl. no. 55 whereas the name of the petitioner comes at sl. no. 214. It is the contention of the respondents that in that view of the matter there are 158 officers senior to the petitioner who have a prior and a better claim for consideration for empanelment/appointment to D.G./equivalent level posts at the Centre and out of them there are a number of officers who have experience of working in para-military forces including R.P.F. The petitioner however points out that 33 officers have already retired and 12 others are going to retire soon. Even then there will be not less than 113 officers in between Shri Rudra and the petitioner.

(3.) It may be mentioned here that the Railway Protection Force has been constituted under the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 and it has been declared to be an Armed Force of the Union. Prior to 1983 there was only one post of Inspector General, R.P.F. wherein vested the command, supervision and administration of the Force. At that time there were posts of Chief Security officers of the rank of Deputy Inspector General for each zonal railway. In 1983 the post of the Inspector General, R.P.F. was upgraded to the post of Director General and the posts of Chief Security Officer in the rank of Deputy Inspector General were upgraded to the rank of Inspector General for respective zonal railways except a few railways. After 1983 there is one post of Director General of the R.P.F. as the head of the Force and there are 7 posts of Inspector General. The power of appointment to the post of Director General of the Force and to the posts of Inspector General, Additional Inspector General etc. vests in the Central Government under section 4 of the R.P.F. Act, 1957. It is the contention of the petitioner that since the creation of the post of Director General in the R.P.F. the same has always been filled up by appointing the senior most Inspector General working in R.P.F. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition the petitioner has also given the names of the three incumbents to the post of Director General, R.P.F. since 1983 who were all appointed to the post of D.G. while they were functioning as the senior most Inspector General in R.P.F. It is the contention of the respondents that those incumbents to the post of Director General, R.P.F. were appointed to the said post not solely because they were the senior most Inspector General in the R.P.F. at the relevant time but because they were considered suitable while other officers of sufficient seniority in I.P.S. were also considered along with them. It is also the contention of the respondents that the petitioner being an officer of the 1963 batch the question of considering him for a D.G. level post at the Centre does not arise yet inasmuch as only the officers of 1959, 1960 and 1961 batches are now considered and empanelled for appointment to the D.G. level posts at the Centre and as such the petitioner is not yet eligible for such consideration.